sm_disk_operationsList available disks, check disk usage, and generate disk space reports to monitor storage and prevent capacity issues on managed systems.
Operations for managing system disks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path for disk usage | |
| action | Yes | Action to perform. Must be one of: 'list_disks', 'get_disk_usage', 'get_disk_space_report' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether these operations mutate anything, what permissions are needed, or what is returned. "Managing" even suggests mutation while the schema's actions are all read-only queries, leaving the safety profile ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — nothing informative precedes or follows it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a family of similarly named sm_*_operations siblings, the description should explain scope and return shape. Instead it leaves the agent to reconstruct behavior entirely from the action enum.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the action enum is enumerated and path is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond that, not even noting that path is only relevant to the usage/report actions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Operations for managing system disks" restates the tool name (Sm Disk Operations) with only the word "disks" adding any content. It never states what an operation actually does (list, query usage, report space) and gives no basis for choosing this over sibling tools such as sm_storage_health_raid or sm_storage_health_smart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent has to infer from the enum values in the schema alone that this is a read-only disk inventory/usage tool and not a storage-health tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.